In defence of depth

Shallow depth of field is extremely overrated IMO. Many of the best photos have at least some depth of field. In travel photography depth of field provides context. Not to say it is never useful, some portraits look better with thin depth of field.

It's just one tool of many.

But it concerns me that on these forums something I've seen is that it has become a straw man argument. Mirror-less has approached larger cameras in IQ terms and SLR shooters are baiting users of smaller cameras into basically meaningless debates about one of the few things that MILC cameras can't do = thin depth of field. Mirror-less users are falling for the bait and obsessing about what their cameras can not do.

Agree totally, narrow depth of field is just as important as shallow depth of field.They both have their place thats for sure and you are absolutely right, many folks get caught up in a narrow minded game or should that be a shallow minded game. WC